A MAN NEVER ARGUES WITH A BEAUTIFUL WOMAN - OH BUT I INSIST

[Leyla Shen]

PS: However, I disagree with this one:

Pye: It says that "Your use of pink and blue font indicates an unserious, unconcentrated mind," instead of saying "My mind can't concentrate or be serious around pink or blue font."

Someone who is interested in thought thinks to that degree.

Font colour is the last thing on my mind when I am thinking or writing my thoughts to this forum -- unless it is about font colour, interestingly enough. Hence, to me, it's saying, "The last thing I pay attention to is the colour of my font when I'm thinking about the substance of a philosophical discussion."

When you see a different coloured font on a philosophy forum, are you caused to pause -- even if momentarily -- and then refocus on the discussion?

Why don't you change the colour of your font?

.

[Leyla Shen]

Pye wrote:

The synonymous association of "unconsciousness" with "femininity" makes for some rhetorical slop apparently useful to many who think here. On the one hand, it means to equate one human quality (unconsciousness) with a[n assumed] set of qualities (femininity); and on the other hand, it equates a human quality (unconsciousness) with a gender itself (females). The slop from A-is-included-in-B to A-actually-means-C depends upon the rhetorical intent of the speaker. This gives the terms in general and the genius forum in particular a safehouse for dressing-up misogyny, as well as a rhetorical devise for backing out of it. It serves another logistical, and actually more serious hiccup in thinking I'll get to in a second.

Here are some further absurdities from this rhetorical devise: it assumes that there are complementaries in place [masculine/feminine] and that these have been definitively fixed by some trick of metaphysical authority, rather than being a device of our own [social] construction (so in this, it is an invitation in itself to a lack of consciousness).

To all of that, Kevin replied:

The duality of consciousness/unconsciousness is made by the individual mind.

"Metaphysical authority" and "social construction" doesn't mean anything to me.

How duplicitous!

Pye explicitly addressed the arbitrary synonymity of unconscious/conscious with feminine/masculine-man/woman.

As far as my individual mind (as opposed to yours and those who are in agreement with you) goes, Pye is absolutely spot on with this observation.

.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

DQ:
I did walk away, actually. The only time I fell in love was with a girl called Tracey, back in my early twenties. I ended up leaving her after a couple of years, even though we were still very much in love, because I wanted to focus more heavily on philosophy. I was very much inspired by Kierkegaard at the time, particularly his decision to break off his engagement with Regina in similar circumstances (I cannot thank you enough, Soren!).

I'm curious, what specifically did you gain by walking away from Tracey that you could not have attained with her in your life?

I am also interested in reading what inspired this decision. In what book of Kierkegaard might I read more about this?

[frank]

Jason:

But how could you ever see beyond stories, and how could you know that there was a Void? As long as you had a mind you would always be creating a story, and that means the "Void" would be just another plot device in a story, no fundamentally different than the "Rescuer", "Persecutor" or "Victim".

Nagarjuna brought in the 'Void' plot device to act as a Game Breaker and create Peace with it.

The drama gets into 'full swing' and the verbal abuse and physical abuse arises....
To 'void it' or see that 'it's empty and meaningless'...that it's 'just a Story'...
That when there is argument...there is Ego.

The Taoists would ask...'Who are you when you are seeing Good/Bad?
You are Ego of course...Self...I....Self Referencing.

The Roles in the Drama are 'Clinging to Self'...

Here is the one true brilliance:
If I have 10 houses and the 10 houses are destroyed in an earthquake....
The Suffering/delusion arises from I, Self, Ego.
It doesn't arise from the houses/earthquake.
Suffering/delusion arises from Self Referencing.

In the QRS 'Woman' Drama.
It's easy to see they are running an attraction/repulsion scam.
It's Self Referenced...Ego/I/Self.

Attraction/Repulsion has to have Ego to be attracted/repulsed.

All Sentient Beings have Buddha Nature without exception.

Sentient means responsive to sensations.
Humans, plants and animals.
Some even think inanimate objects like mountains, buildings, rocks have Buddha Nature.
Eveything is Buddha Nature.

without exception.
let the repitition of this open you up psychologically and spiritually...

All sentient Beings have Buddha Nature.

If there's any excluding going on or minimizing....it means EGO TRIP.

Drama arises from Ego.

frank

[Pye]

.

Leyla writes:

When you see a different coloured font on a philosophy forum, are you caused to pause -- even if momentarily -- and then refocus on the discussion?

I think maybe I have had too much practice moving form out of the way to get at the thought - moving ink colors and paper-types and handwriting shapes and styles, and sometimes even the words themselves out of the way to get to the thought. And I probably got this practice from a solitary occasion when I failed to do this and blew off someone's deep thinking.

If one thinks in the postmodern sense that "the medium is the message," then the pink would have to weigh-in. In other words, the pink itself holds as much meaning as the thought it is trying to represent.

.

[Pye]

*


frank script: Laugh, Clown, Laugh

;)

.

[David Quinn]

And yet frank is unable to laugh at himself, or at the things he finds meaningful. He is selective in his laughter, which means he is at odds with the overall message he is trying to convey.

-

[Kevin Solway]

Pye: it equates a human quality (unconsciousness) with a gender itself (females).

This is of course completely wrong. I do not equate unconsciousness with the female gender (females). This has been explained often enough. Rather, "unconsciousness" is equated with a component of personality - the unconscious component. But it is linked to females through calling it "femininity", because it is very useful to do so.

It is always useful to name something in a manner that will help you to remember what it means.

Pye explicitly addressed the arbitrary synonymity of unconscious/conscious with feminine/masculine-man/woman.

It's not "arbitrary" is it? Not if the connection throws itself forward as an obvious choice.

it assumes that there are complementaries in place [masculine/feminine] and that these have been definitively fixed by some trick of metaphysical authority, rather than being a device of our own [social] construction

The complementarities of masculine/feminine have been created by evolution, not by by a "metaphysical authority" or "social construction".

[David Quinn]

frank wrote:

Nagarjuna brought in the 'Void' plot device to act as a Game Breaker and create Peace with it.

For some reason, you've suddenly forgotten the speil. Shouldn't it be:

Nagarjuna indulged in the Drama of trying to Break The Game "in order to" create Peace with it. He was Repulsed by the Game Playing and thus was Attracted to the goal of Breaking it.

And what about:

Frank indulges in the Drama of writing to Genius Forum "in order to" correct the Misguided Souls who dwell there. He is Repulsed by the Drama which is usually played there and Attracted to the goal of wanting to Correct it.

And also:

Frank indulges in the Drama of blocking the nature of this Behaviour from his Mind "in order to" maintain the Pretence that he is Above All Drama. He is Repulsed by the idea that he is behaving as egotistically and argumentatively as those whom he Criticizes, and thus he likes to Attach himself to the Fantasy that he is a Detached Laugher at All Things.

That's how it is meant to go, isn't it?

If there's any excluding going on or minimizing....it means EGO TRIP.

Let's compile a list of what you personally (and arbitrarily) exclude from what constitutes Egotism and Drama:

- Nagarjuna creating teachings in order to correct ignorance in the world.

- Frank eating food in order to fix the problem of his own hunger.

- Frank writing to this forum in order to correct other people's misunderstandings.

- Frank riding to the rescue of women in order to save them from the Evil Misogynists.

And so on. I'm sure there are hundreds of other examples I could draw upon.

This is one of the main problems with pretending to be a detached laugher at all things and characterizing all goal-orientated behaviour as "egotistical" and somehow wrong. It automatically places you in a position of hypocrisy, given that your own life is full of goal-orientated behaviour, as well as attractions, repulsions, exclusions, arguments, etc.

I know you try to get around this by pretending that your own goal-orientated behaviour is in harmony with the Tao, unlike everyone else's, but that is just part of the hypocrisy.

There is also the far more serious problem of your Scripts encouraging people to abandon the path to enlightenment in favour of sinking back into a mindless cow-like existence, akin to your own cow-like existence - which is, quite frankly, unforgiveable.

In any case, I'm starting to find your posts extremely repetitive and tedious, and I believe you are starting to drag the forum down with this endless fixation of yours. I don't want the forum to be arguing this same shallow point over and over in six months time. We've all got far better things to do with our time. You've had ample time to make your point, such that it is, and now I think it is time for you to go and make it somewhere else.

Don't even think of coming back until you have dealt more honestly with those major hypocrisies inside you and you have removed some of those mental blocks.

-

[Pye]

.

male and female are species-beings.
masculinity and femininity are concepts.

The first nature creates; the second humans create. If we have been blind agents in-and-for nature in this creation, then these concepts are not conscious products either.

metaphysical authority: the Tao
social construction: the human patriarchate configuration, out of which humans have never lived.

the patriarchate is not a request, requirement of evolution. It's a social dominance model for the strength of its user.

One should take care of what they remand to Nature. It can invite a rising human consciousness into inertia. Our "natures" are to work against, for neither is enlightenment our "natural" state.

I do not equate unconsciousness with the female gender (females). This has been explained often enough. Rather, "unconsciousness" is equated with a component of personality - the unconscious component. But it is linked to females through calling it "femininity", because it is very useful to do so.

more slippery bullshit.

.

[Kevin Solway]

male and female are species-beings.
masculinity and femininity are concepts.

The first nature creates; the second humans create.

Men are attracted to femininity in women, and women are attracted to masculinity in men. This is the same across all cultures. So masculinity and femininity is more than just a concept: it is an important part of our evolution.

the patriarchate is not a request, requirement of evolution. It's a social dominance model for the strength of its user.

There's a reason why women rarely get into positions of power - across all times and cultures. And it's not just a socially created artifice.

It would seem to be something deep in the genes, which can hopefully it can be overcome by technology in the future. And it can certainly be at least minimized through mental training.

for neither is enlightenment our "natural" state.

It's a tough battle for both men and women. We are all burdened by our genetic inheritence.

Men are almost as unconscious as women are. But the difference is still remarkable.

[Leyla Shen]

Kevin wrote:

This is of course completely wrong. I do not equate unconsciousness with the female gender (females). This has been explained often enough. Rather, "unconsciousness" is equated with a component of personality - the unconscious component. But it is linked to females through calling it "femininity", because it is very useful to do so.

It's not "arbitrary" is it? Not if the connection throws itself forward as an obvious choice.

Not being absolute (that is, having a very definite empirical component -- "linking femininity with [biological] females"), it is absolutely arbitrary. However, I agree that it is useful -- and it is for this very reason that I do not consider you a misogynist. Quite the contrary. In fact, I consider you a feminist, Kevin. And, within that context, I therefore consider myself a masculinist and thus continue to hold that this philosophy is -- when it comes to males -- utterly useless to them as a philosophy. One only needs to consider the number of males who have frequented this forum and utterly missed the point of it. So, whilst it looks like you are in there pitching for the boys and holding them up as carrying the seed of masculinity, really it boils down to quite the opposite.

Pye: Here are some further absurdities from this rhetorical devise: it assumes that there are complementaries in place [masculine/feminine] and that these have been definitively fixed by some trick of metaphysical authority, rather than being a device of our own [social] construction (so in this, it is an invitation in itself to a lack of consciousness).

Kevin: The complementarities of masculine/feminine have been created by evolution, not by by a "metaphysical authority" or "social construction".

Surely, you jest. Rhetorical devices could be said to have been created by evolution, just like “delusion” and “illusion.” Your return to objectivism here leaves a very bad taste in my philosophical mouth.

The primary difficulty with this, of course, is the attempt to reduce delusion down to a single, objective causal factor: a desperate attempt to embrace a physical panacea.

To keep telling a deluded man how unconscious women are and then call him a disgrace when he fails to step up to the mark is about as effective as dropping a thimble full of disinfectant into a cesspool. Why is that?

Kevin: Men are almost as unconscious as women are. But the difference is still remarkable.

And here again we must find ourselves placing such remarkableness squarely into "genius" in the fields of science, politics, flying jet planes and all those other meaningless pursuits wherein a few good men have excelled so that all other men can rest on their feminine laurels.

Remarkable, indeed.

.

[Kevin Solway]

Not . . . having a very definite empirical component -- "linking femininity with [biological] females"), it is absolutely arbitrary.

The fact that there are very few, if any, female geniuses is very tangible empirical evidence.

Moreover, the fact that I have a feminine component to my own nature is the strongest empirical evidence, since I can observe its operation at first hand.

The primary difficulty with this, of course, is the attempt to reduce delusion down to a single, objective causal factor: a desperate attempt to embrace a physical panacea.

Being unconscious is the one reason a person is not aware of reality. No fault there.

Being biologically male is not a panacea, but it does usually give you a running start.

To keep telling a deluded man how unconscious women are and then call him a disgrace when he fails to step up to the mark is about as effective as dropping a thimble full of disinfectant into a cesspool. Why is that?

I do tell men how unconscious they are as well. A large part of men's attraction to women is their desire for unconsciousness.

And here again we must find ourselves placing such remarkableness squarely into "genius" in the fields of science, politics, flying jet planes and all those other meaningless pursuits wherein a few good men have excelled so that all other men can rest on their feminine laurels.

All men have a noticeable amount of the same genius that is required for all those pursuits, as well as for the pursuit of philosophical and religious genius. This genius is generally more noticeable in men when they are younger, before their souls are killed-off.

[Leyla Shen]

Kevin wrote:

I do tell men how unconscious they are as well.

Yes, I know you do, Kevin. And my point is, despite your efforts, they're not getting it.

.

[Pye]

Kevin writes:

A large part of men's attraction to women is their desire for unconsciousness.

here again, you have the object of desire (women) in possession of the quality (unconsciousness) that actually belongs to the subject experiencing it (men).

bad faith, Kevin. perfect recipe for stopping rising consciousness dead in its tracks. It shines the bright light of blame/cause upon the object and leaves the subject dead in its tracks, in the dark. Nothing will ever move here until this kind of self-delusion is dismantled. I would think you'd wish genius forum to transcend this dead-end purgatorial status at some point in the future. but as long as you continue to provide and promote a safe-house for bad faith, the lid's still on, and all will be breathing this recirculating air.

.

[DHodges]

All men have a noticeable amount of the same genius that is required for all those pursuits, as well as for the pursuit of philosophical and religious genius. This genius is generally more noticeable in men when they are younger, before their souls are killed-off.

Oh, bullshit. Most men are bitches. Saying all men have some philosophical talent is like saying all men have a talent for basketball.

You interpret the same acts by men differently than if a woman did it. Seriously, it seems like a major blind spot that you have, Kevin - interpreting anything that comes from a male as masculine, and interpreting anything coming from a female as feminine. But it's just your prejudice.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Pye wrote:
If one thinks in the postmodern sense that "the medium is the message," then the pink would have to weigh-in. In other words, the pink itself holds as much meaning as the thought it is trying to represent.

I'm not actually seeing pink, but this violet is the closest I find, I also find it unpleasant to read against this background.(yes, I know that as I'm typing this in the "Post a reply" box it is actually black type on a white background, but I consider it polite to visualize how it's going to look as I'm typing it [Although for effect I was going to leave all of that violet, I moved the comment out of the violet command because I just could not subject everyone to reading that much violet type]).
This green is kind of nice, but IMO it isn't worth the extra step of selecting a different font color unless there is a particular reason to do so.

emma wrote:
Lasting Love requires Logic and Logical Emotion

Okay, now we're on the same page. :D
Kevin wrote:

This is of course completely wrong. I do not equate unconsciousness with the female gender (females). This has been explained often enough. Rather, "unconsciousness" is equated with a component of personality - the unconscious component. But it is linked to females through calling it "femininity", because it is very useful to do so.

It is always useful to name something in a manner that will help you to remember what it means.

It is useful to name things appropriately, but why is "unconciousness" and "femininity" linked together in your brain? Concerns about date-rape drugs come to my mind when it is put that way...
David wrote:

Frank indulges in the Drama of writing to Genius Forum "in order to" correct the Misguided Souls who dwell there. He is Repulsed by the Drama which is usually played there and Attracted to the goal of wanting to Correct it.

Elizabeth noted in herself:
Elizabeth indulges in the Drama of writing to Genius Forum "in order to" correct the Misguided Souls who dwell there. She is alternatingly intrigued or perplexed by the Drama which is usually played there and Attracted to the goal of wanting to Correct it.
That was fun.

David wrote:

Don't even think of coming back until you have dealt more honestly with those major hypocrisies inside you and you have removed some of those mental blocks.

Aww. It's your board, so obviously you can do as you please, but enlightenment does not happen by throwing someone away from a source of wisdom. Please don't shove frank off the board.

Kevin wrote:

There's a reason why women rarely get into positions of power - across all times and cultures. And it's not just a socially created artifice.

I would really like for you to expound on that. Would you please start a separate thread stating your insights? I have a few thoughts, too, and would like to respond to yours.

Pye wrote:

male and female are species-beings.
masculinity and femininity are concepts.

Good point. It can be annoying when words are dissimilar in meaning. Another example "Harold shorted five calls on IRM and stayed in it for the long haul." Crud, just say "sold" or "bought" rather than "short" or "long" - they had to intentionally choose those words to confuse people.

The difference between the annoying words in option trading and the annoying words of masculinity and femininity is that masculine and feminine are very personal concepts to everyone. So is money, but in a different way.

Kevin wrote:

Men are attracted to femininity in women, and women are attracted to masculinity in men. This is the same across all cultures. So masculinity and femininity is more than just a concept: it is an important part of our evolution.

Actually it is an important part of fetal development, and is influenced by the hormones floating around in the womb.

Kevin wrote:

The fact that there are very few, if any, female geniuses is very tangible empirical evidence.

I posted a link to my IQ test results under the thread "What kind of genius are you." Would you like to post yours?

[Jason]

Frank,

Here is the one true brilliance:
If I have 10 houses and the 10 houses are destroyed in an earthquake....
The Suffering/delusion arises from I, Self, Ego.
It doesn't arise from the houses/earthquake.

No, you're being one-sided, the suffering arises from having both the self and the houses/eathquake. You could remove either, and the suffering would go. I've got a self, but I don't suffer when a house I don't own or care about is destroyed by an earthquake.

[David Quinn]

Elizabeth wrote:

It's your board, so obviously you can do as you please, but enlightenment does not happen by throwing someone away from a source of wisdom. Please don't shove frank off the board.

I haven't banned him yet, but if he does post here again, I will. Don't worry, you can know everything that frank has to say simply by reading one of his posts, and there are hundreds of them in the various threads. It is basically the same post over and over. I've come to view it as spam, hence the need to eject it from the forum.

People are free to express whatever views they want on this forum, but one thing we don't tolerate is spam, particularly if it keeps distracting the forum. The issue he presented has been thrashed out long enough, I reckon. Now it's time to move on.

Frank can still read the forum if he wants, so he won't be deprived of whatever wisdom is being expressed here, unless he chooses to be. But I really don't think he has any potential - he is far too fixed in his ways and he lacks the courage to think deeply about things. And he already thinks he's there.

-

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

David wrote:

Don't worry, you can know everything that frank has to say simply by reading one of his posts,

Actually I wasn't worried about that.

David wrote:

Frank can still read the forum if he wants, so he won't be deprived of whatever wisdom is being expressed here, unless he chooses to be.

That addresses part of my concern.

David wrote:

People are free to express whatever views they want on this forum, but one thing we don't tolerate is spam, particularly if it keeps distracting the forum. The issue he presented has been thrashed out long enough, I reckon. Now it's time to move on.

That clearly expresses what he did wrong, and what, if he were to be placed on final warning instead, he should do to be acceptable to the board.

I re-quote David:

one thing we don't tolerate is spam, particularly if it keeps distracting the forum.

That is wise management of a board.

I acknowledge that I have not been here long enough to get to know anybody very well, and there has probably been a great deal more to this than what I saw on these few threads that I have participated in. Out of a desire to be understood and enough judgement of people to see that you, David, can probably understand me, I want to explain that I only made the request out of a desire to make sure that justice is adequately expressed.

Thank you for addressing my concerns. I have no interest in further addressing the topic of frank.

[frank]

David=Rescuer

Frank=Persecutor

Board= Victim

It's Hilarious!

QRS=Rescuer

Woman=Persecutor

Man= Victim

It's Hilarious!

It's a Spin on the old Jack and Jill Story.

frank

[spiritual_emergency]

I found your posts to contain good insights, Frank and often found myself agreeing with your perspectives, i.e. revulsion is attachment. So too, holding "enlightenment" up as a dangling carrot is almost guaranteed to ensure that it will always remain just out of your grasp, even as you hold the stick the carrot dangles from. It is better sometimes, to toss aside the stick and carrot in recognition of their worthlessness. Awareness will find you where it finds you.

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin wrote:

There's a reason why women rarely get into positions of power - across all times and cultures. And it's not just a socially created artifice.

I would really like for you to expound on that. Would you please start a separate thread stating your insights? I have a few thoughts, too, and would like to respond to yours.

Have a read of the following compilation of writings by Camille Paglia first. Then you you might like to start a thread discussing the issue:

Camille Paglia

The fact that there are very few, if any, female geniuses is very tangible empirical evidence.

I posted a link to my IQ test results

I don't agree with the definition that a person with a high IQ is a genius. You will notice that the page of quotations on genius I gave you a reference to (and which is also linked to at the top of the forum) made no mention of IQ.

Only an average IQ is required for genius. But the other ingredients are harder to come by.

[sky]

for this i will make it post 101 in blue font

That is wise management of a board.

I acknowledge that I have not been here long enough to get to know anybody very well, and there has probably been a great deal more to this than what I saw on these few threads that I have participated in. Out of a desire to be understood and enough judgement of people to see that you, David, can probably understand me, I want to explain that I only made the request out of a desire to make sure that justice is adequately expressed.

Thank you for addressing my concerns. I have no interest in further addressing the topic of frank.

la la la

wise management

concern for justice

david can understand you

by posting your iq posting your picture and kissing up to david you are only underscoring exactly from whence comes the anti feminine found here

quite frankly you embarrass me i may use pink fonts on occasion but your words/thoughts attempts to appeal to the 'superior male' are paris hilton pink all the way

and if it wins you favorable consideration from david then you have unconsciously blown his whole argument to kingdom come

and if david cannot handle frank and must needs ban him then where is the transcendent equilibrium of the enlightened sage

[Kevin Solway]

Kevin writes:

A large part of men's attraction to women is their desire for unconsciousness.

here again, you have the object of desire (women) in possession of the quality (unconsciousness) that actually belongs to the subject experiencing it (men).

Men are unconscious, yes, there's no dispute about that.

But most men want a holiday from what little consciousness they do have. And that is a large part of the reason they seek women.

Men are mostly unconscious, but they are not unconscious enough for their liking.

bad faith, Kevin. perfect recipe for stopping rising consciousness dead in its tracks.

What is? Recognizing the truth? Being attracted to women? I'm not sure what you're saying.

It shines the bright light of blame/cause upon the object

I don't know where you get this idea from.

Let's say I'm overworked and I want to go on a holiday to Hawaii. Does that mean I'm blaming Hawaii for my weakness? I don't think so.

and leaves the subject dead in its tracks, in the dark. Nothing will ever move here until this kind of self-delusion is dismantled. I would think you'd wish genius forum to transcend this dead-end purgatorial status at some point in the future. but as long as you continue to provide and promote a safe-house for bad faith, the lid's still on, and all will be breathing this recirculating air.

You seem to be working from the assumption that women are equally as conscious, rational, and deep thinking as men. And this I certainly do not agree with - although I wish it were true.